>^ 



I \ c^ 



.Nil 






Abuses in the Appointment of Subordinate 

Officers and Employees of the 

House of Representatives. 



A REVIEW OF THE REPORT OF THE 
MOODY COMMITTEE 



PREPARED BY THE 

INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE 



OF THE 



National Civil-Service Reform League. 



1901. 



x.^^' 



,^J 



'V 



v\ 



^' ^^ 



A 



Publ. 



A 



r 

r Abuses in tlie Appointment of Subordinate 
^' Officers and Employees of tlie 

House of Representatives 



To THE Council of the National Civil Service Reform League: 
Your Committee appointed to inquire into the condition of 
the Federal Civil Service desires to present for coRsideration, 
as a glaring illustration of the evils of the spoils system, the 
abuses existing in the service of the House of Representatives, 
which were disclosed by the so-called Moody Committee on 
the 28th of February last. The entire investigation made by 
the Committee had to be completed within six days, hence 
the report was hastily prepared, and, while its general con- 
clusions were admirably stated, it omits many details which 
exhibit in a striking light the deformity and grotesqutness of 
the abuses revealed by the evidence. Your Committee be- 
lieve that a more particular account of the corruption, extra- 
vagance and inefficiency which have resulted from the patron- 
age system still in force in this branch of the service should 
be given to the {mblic. 

While the subordinates in these places are nominally ap- 
pointed by their superior officers — the Clerk of the House, 
the Doorkeeper, etc., the places are really apportioned as 
patronage among different Members of Congress, mostly 
among those belonging to the party in power. The system 
under Avhich this apportionment has been made, and under 
which subordinates of virtually every class have been selected, 
Mr. Glenn, the door-keeper, very frankly describes as follows: 

Q. Suppose a Member of Congress to whom an individual appoint- 
ment is ciiarged desires to change his appointee, what is done in that 
case? 

A. I immediately change it. 

Q. Irrespective of the capacity of the employee or of his suc- 
cessor? 

A. Yes, sir. I sometimes make requests for different positions 
to bring a certain kind of man in. Sometimes it is done ; sometimes it 
is not. 



Q. Suppose some Member fails to' be renominated and his suc- 
cessor of the same party is chosen ? 

A. When Congress adjourns, his successor succeeds to his posi- 
tion or a smaller one. A new Member is not given — 

Q. That is to say, in order to remain in the service of the House, 
speaking generally, a man has to have behind him the endorsement of 
some Member? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The effect of this is, of course, the House officers become re- 
sponsible for the work of their subordinates without any power of selec- 
tion? 

A. Yes, sir.' 

Q. The effect often is to lose a man who has gained experience 
and become etricient and to replace him with some other ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can there be under such a system as that, under anyone's ad- 
ministration, any successful service? 

A. I do not think there can be as successful as if men were se- 
lected for the exact duties they are to perform. (Testimony, Special In- 
vestij^ation of House Employees, p. 65.) 

One of the many abuses resulting inevitably from this sys- 
tem IS that jiersons who are appointed and paid to do certain 
duties are transferred from their positions, and set to work at 
occupations which are entirely different. There are some 
amusing cases of such transfeis. For instance — to quote the 
report of the Moody Committee: 

" The place of House telegrapher is held by O. M. Enyart, who in 
point of fact has never served in that position, but for a time was de- 
tailed to ihe stationery room and then to the House library, where he 
now is. J- J. Constantine actually performs the duty of telegrapher, 
and has done so during the Fifty-fourth, Fifty-fifth, and Fifty-sixth 
Congresses. During this lime he has been paid from an appropriation 
carried in the legislative net. as foil- ws : ' Hire of horses and wagons 
and cartage for use of the Clerk's office, nine hundred dollars ' " (Re- 
port, p. Ill ) 

Alexander McDonald, the Clerk of the House, ihus ex- 
plains why this is done. He says: 

" Mr. Berry and a number of Democrats came to me and told me 
that this man Constantine had a very lar. e family — I have forgotten the 
exact number, but it is way up, from eight to eleven — and that he was 
pjor and needy, and wanted something to do, and he aslced as a personal 
favor that I give him something to do. This was the only thing that I 
could control, and so I put him under the $90(.» item. I le gets the whole 
of that $900, and then in order to do the work I pay $40 a month to a 
teamster, who hauls bo.xes and stationery for the members." (p. xo.) 

It afterwards ;ippeared that this $40 a month (paid to one 



Richards in lieu of the $900 appropriated) was obtained by- 
contributions from other employees. 

In the meantime, what were the duties performed by 
Enyart, " the telegrapher ", who had been receiving $1,200 
salary for Constantine's $900 job, who had, moreover, been 
demanding an appropriation of " some twenty odd hundred 
dollars," (p. i6) and for whom $400 additional (making $1,600 
in all), had actually been recommended by the Clerk, who tes- 
tified as follows ; 

Q. What has he (Enyart) done to deserve S400 more than the 
Si,200 he is already receiving? 

A. I do not know. 

Q. Do you know about his compiling this work, Biographical Dic- 
tionary of Congress ? 

A. He told me he was doing it. 

Q. Did you know when he did that? 

A. N'o, sir. 

Q. Whether in working hours or otherwise ? 

A. I do not know. He might have worked on it in the library 
when there were no calls. 

Q. That is a pretty leisuiely place ? 

A. You need not necessarily perspire a great deal. (p. 17.) 

Your couiniittee appreciates tiiC good fortune of a grateful 
an<l a<:curate biographei who linds himself thus rewarded by 
appreciative statesmanship. 

Another odd aj pointment is that of John J. Conroy, who 
is earned on the rf -lis as page at $500 a year, and is employed 
actually as driver of the House wagon. In regard to him, 
Mr. Glenn, the doorkeei)«.r, testifies ; 

" He can't read or write, and we could not do anything with him 
and so we assigned him to the wagon The man employed as driver is 
scrubbing the floors and cleaning spittoons." (p. 76.) 

Conroy liimself was examined by the Committee and com- 
l)laincd ))itterly because, although employed as a dri\er, and 
being "kept out in storms, etc.," he was not getting a driver's 
pay, but merely a page's salary! (p. 81). 

" Winthrop C. Jones," says the report of the Moody Coinmitiee, 
•' is carried on the roll as a locksniith under the Clerk's department at a 
salary of $1,440, while in point of fact he performs the duty of a mes- 
senger under the Door-keepcr'.s department at the southwest door of the 
Hou.'ie lobby, and his duties as locksmith are performed by Daniel P. 
Hickling, who is on the Doorkeeper's roll as a ses.sion foider at b75 a 
month. Thus the po-.ition of locksmith, the duties of which require 
only a payment of S75 per month during tke session, pays to a man who 
does none of its duties $1,440 per annum. And this is not all. There 



are four other men serving with Jones as messengers at the southwest 
lobby door. The five men all do exactly the same work, while their re- 
spective rates of pay are different. Thus, while Jones receives $1,440, 
George E. Page, a folder, receives $840, Willard Wilson, also a folder, 
receives $900 ; John Deardorff, on the messenger's roll, receives $1,000 
and George Jenison, a specip' employee by House resolution, receives 
$1,200 per annum. 

" Jones was at the time of his appointment to the post of locksmith 
on the roll as a messenger, receiving $1,000 per annum. He continued 
to perform the same duties after his appointment as locksmith, the net 
effect of the transaction being to increase his compensation $440 a year 
at the expense of the person to whom that sum was really due for ser- 
vice performed. The whole transaction is so instructive that we report 
a part of the testimony relating to it : 

" The Chairman : Daniel P. Hickling is performing the duties of 
locksmith? 

Major McDowell : Yes, sir. 

Q, Did he not hold the position of locksmith once ? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How did he happen to be removed from that position ? 

A. Several Members of the Michigan delegation thought they 
hadn't their share. 

Q. Was this man Jones, who was appointed, a locksmith? 

A. Indeed, I do not knov/, 

Q. Have you ever heard that he had any skill at that calling? 

A. No, I never knew anything about him. I know him, but that's 
all. I do not know what his qualifications are. 

Q. The substance of it was that you yielded to the demand of the 
Michigan delegation without any regard whatever to the interests of the 
public service ? 

A. That's right. 

" Itis not surprising to find, as we do, that Jones is a persistent ab- 
sentee, and not attentive to bis duties when present. He was absent 
from the service of the House from early in April of last year until after 
the Christmas holidays." (Report, pp. II. and IV.) 

Many other appointees have been absent without justifica- 
tion, both dr.ring the sessions and between sessions, and yet 
received pay. The librarian and his subordinates have been 
absent for long periods, though the House library was in a 
condition that would require years of intelligent labor to put 
it in proper order. It consists of some 300,000 volumes 
(many of which are duplicates) scattered from the dome to the 
basement of the Capitol, books being piled in unused room.s, 
like wood or coal. The present librarian, Mr. John J. Boo- 
bar, testified : 

" It would be all right for a barnyard, but for books it was ter- 
rible." (p. V.) 



He further gives an interesting description of his manner 
of managing a library. Among tlie functionaries who do duty 
amid this motley collection of books is one W. H. Smith, who 
has however, no official position upon the roll : 

Q. What does he do there ? 

A. He loafs about there. He has been in that librar)' so long that 
he does not seem to be at home anywhere else . He has had a very good 
run of the books — that is, especially ihe old books, which were down in 
this rubbish pile, and he knows what part of the rubbish pile to go for 
certain books. 

Q. Has anything been paid him by any of the employees to your 
knowledge ? 

A. We have never paid him anything, except once in a while we 
give him a quarter or a half-dollar. He is pretty fond of old John Bar- 
leycorn, and likes a drink. 

Q. Has he been provided for on the deficiency bill ? 

A. I understand he has been allowed an appropriation of $600. 

Q. Did you pay him any money as compensation for his remaining 
in the library during your absence ? 

A. Not exactly for remaining in the library. 

Q. Any stipulated sum ? 

A. We had no regular sum. I paid him while I was gone. 

Q. During your ab.sence did you pay him any certain sum on ac- 
count of your absence ? 

A. For the purpose of having Mr. Smith help the one member of 
the force who ivas here, yes, sir. 

Q. How much ? 

A. Five dollars a month. 

Q. How long did that continue ? 

A. I paid Mr. Smith in all something like $25. 

Q. For last summer. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was that arrangement such that other members of the same 
force made similar contributions to ^^r. Smith ? 

A. I think that the other boys when they were away wanted to 
have Mr. Smith help the man who was remaining, (pp. 83-84.) 

It would thus appear from the librarian's own testimony 
that the business of keeping the " rubbish pile " was farmed 
out during vacation, at very moderate figures, to this devotee 
of John Barleycorn. 

But Mr. Boobar's conception of the proper duties of a li- 
brarian appears very clearly in another part of his testimony. 
R. P. Bishop, assistant librarian (the son of Congressman 
Bishop, of Michigan), having testified that he, too, was ab- 
sent — absent on the campaign from the time Congress ad- 
journed and until November — Mr. Boobar was asked : 



Q. In the condition of the library your force ought to be on duty 
the whole year ; should they not ? 

A. Why, no, sir. 

Q. With 300,000 books scattered all over the Capitol, you say your 
force ought not to be here all the year? 

A. You see, there is very little call for books during the recess. 

Q. It is not a question of call for books, but a question of putting 
the library in such shape that books can be found when called for. 

A. The library (up to the appointment of the so-called Robert's 
Committee) that is contained in the basement was in such a condition 
that the week after I went on as librarian I went to the clerk and told 
him the terrible condition of affairs down there. He seemed to think 
that there was no way of getting those books straightened up, and in- 
deed the work has required the labor of six or eight men for a year now. 

Q. And in the meantime those men who are drawing their pay are 
away performing no duty. That is true of yourself and true of Mr. 
Bishop, and we will propably find it true of others. Is not that utterly 
inexcusable ? 

A. Well, I hardly think, Mr. Chairman, in all due fairness to the 
library force, they should have been asked to have taken that accumula- 
tion of books and endeavored to straighten them out. (pp. 84-85.) 

Mr. Guy Underwood, who is on the rolls as a laborer, at 
$720 a year, but who was detailed to the House library, and 
was paid $1,800 a year by a deficiency bill, offers the follow- 
ing interesting statement of his views regarding the proper 
performance of official duty. 

Q. (by the chairman). We get all sorts of communications, and 
among others is a communication that you have not been here more than 
a quarter of the time. What have you to say about it ? 

A. I would beg leave to vigorously deny that statement and state 
that I have been in the city and ready to do service probably as much as 
any member of the force, because during the summer I would be here 
and be willing to be at the library a part of the time each day, because 
/ had some business matters, and I cotild ivriie my letters there, and it 
would not be in conflict with any service I could render the library. It 
is a good place to be, and I spend my summer here. Last summer when 
Mr. Boobar went away and Mr. Sabine went away I stayed here. (p. 
38.) 

Mr. Underwood believes evidently that his staying some- 
where in the city and being willing to be present a part of the 
time each day, writuig letters on private business of his own, 
was equivalent to actual service to a library in the terrible 
condition described. 

But there are many instances of men neglecting to per- 
form their duties outside the library. The folders, taking the 
orders of Members rather than those of the Door-keeper, are 
absent a great deal durmg the vacation, and other persons are 



employe' i and paid by special resolution to do their work. 
The Superintendent of the folding-room says: 

" There are instances where a folder is transferred to the messenger 
position and his Member of Congress then considers him a messenger 
and I have no jurisdiction. I can't keep them and put them back to 
work " (p. 53) 

And the Door-keeper testifies : 

"I do not like to criticise Members, but that is the situation. 
They go and say, " I have got to have my man home, and he must go 
home ; it is absolutely necessary,' and he has been permitted to go." 
(p. V.) 

The Door-keeper is further asked : 

" Have there been any other cases of absenteeism except among the 
folders?" 

To which he replies : 

" No, sir. Except those who naturally go." (p. 74.) 

It would appear that these two classes, " those who natur- 
ally go," and those who go through the artificial assistance of 
Congressmen, form a pretty large aggregate in the service of 
the House. 

Many specific instances are given. Thus : Leroy J. 
Hooker was appointed clerk to the Door-keeper in May, 
1897. He was absent from Washington from the day of his 
appointment until the following December without loss ot pay. 
(p. V.) S. H. Morgan was "furloughed with pay" half the 
time he was on the roll. Mr. Lyon, the superintendent of the 
folding-room was asked concerning him and one or two others, 
" These are not the only ones wlio have been paid when not 
here ? ' an 1 answered, " There are dozens of them'' (p. 53.) 

One case is that of C. C. Leavens, a clerk in the Dewey 
Hotel in Washington, who "had Isis afternoons off," and 
worked in the folding-room oflice aiid in tlie Door-keeper's of- 
fice, reporting at !:Oon. Mr. Glenn. tiie door-keeper said that 
" He had a long 1 ne of endorsements." 

But the case of E. H. Keller, of New York, deserves more 
extended con.sideration. He had been upon the roll as an 
employee in the cloak-room ever since July 26ih, 1897. But 
when iijquiries were made for him, other mei!, amor.g them 
those who were in ti>e cloak-room, couUl not tel! who he was. 
(pp. 37-38, 42.) At last the Superiiuei:dent of tl.e foldiiig- 
room succeefied in placn^g him. " He was transferred to my 
department," (;). 54) says Mr. Lyon, who further testified th.nt 



during three year Keller had been at work " off and on for 
three or four months." The House Committee adds in its re- 
port of this case : 

"It is the opinion of the Door-keeper that Keller worked six 
months. In any event he has not worked over six months in the nearly 
four years during which he has drawn pay, and has not been in Wash- 
ington for eleven or twelve months." (pp. V. and VI.) 

By the beneficent system adopted for the benefit of absent 
employees he is spared the necessity of going to Washington 
even for the purpose of receiving his salary. Mr. Lyon testi- 
fies on this point : 

Q. Does he come here to draw his pay, or do you know ? 
A. No, sir, the vouchers are sent to him. 
Q. Is the roll signed by him ? 

A. - No sir, he fills receipts in the disbursing clerk's office just the 
same as all the other gentlemeti who go home do. (p. 54.) 

Mr. Robinson, the disbursing clerk, also throws light upon 
this matter, in the following testimony : 

Q. Nov/ this man Keller seems not to honor us with his presence 
when he draws his monthly salary? 

A. In that instance when he is away he fills out receipts and puts 
them inside envelopes, and it is a question when he is away on leave of 
absence from the department that gives him permission to go. I see 
that his checks go to him. 

Q. (by Congressman Long). And he would not have to come here 
in person to sign the roll ? 

A. No, sir. Because when a man comes in it is just like our 
friend Richards. When he v.'ent there he got permission from Mr. Mc- 
Dowell to be gone some little time and he came in and left enough re- 
ceipts to cover the time of his absence. At the end of each month we 
send the check. I will say I am a banker at home and have followed 
the banking business all my life, and I am piesident of a tiational bank 
now. (p. 58.) 

It is perhaps a legitimate subject of interest as to whether 
Mr. Robinson's system of voluntary contributions and of con- 
venient vouchers for absent officers and employees prevails 
also in his bank. He further testifies : 

Q. Is there any v/ay by which you can tell from the record 
whether a man is present in the discharge of his work or not ? 

A, No, sir. 

Q. How do you learn whether they are there? 

A. Well, that is just like this. Here is Mr. Cannon, chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, if his clerk goes away for two or three 
months, or if Kenedy F. Rea, or Mr. Cremer should go away, it is no 
question for me to fifid out zvhether they are here or not, and to come up 
to Mr. Cannon and ask if they are here. If Mr. Courts comes to us 



and says he is going away for two months and he files the receipts and 
address in an envelope, we will mail these checks to him. (p. 59.) 

It must be remembered that the disbursing office which 
keeps such admira;)le checks upon the expenditure of the pub- 
lic money itself costs about $14,000 a year. 

The Moody committee in its report, tells us that the pres- 
ent method of appointing employees has existed for many 
years. 

It is very evident, from the foregoing facts, that the posi- 
tions in the service of the House of Representatives are re- 
garded by many members, not as places where there are du- 
ties to be performed, but as sinecures for wl-ich there is public 
money to be appropriated or as plunder to be divined, and 
the sinister question mevitably presents iiself. whether honest 
legislation is to be expected of Congressmen who are thus 
guilty of withdrawing from the treasury of the United States 
these numerous small sums for the benefit of the objects of 
their patronage? Is public virtue in larger matters possible 
ki a body where peculation of no higher dignity than petty 
larceny has been for many years an established institution ? 
That there are many gentlemen m the House, besides the 
members of the Reporting Committee, who are dissatisfied 
and disgusted with such a system, and who would gladly aid 
in doing away with it, we can not doubt. 

But the payment of salaries for services which are not per- 
formed is only a part of the evils incident to the .spoils system. 
The recijjients of this public plunder, as well as the honest 
employees, become theaiselves tiie victims of extortion at the 
hands of others. It is shown by the testimony that many of 
the holders of these places are subject to various forms of 
blackmail in the shape of pohtical assessments, and demands 
for the division and distribution of salaries for the benefit of 
other appointees, and sometimes for th.e benefit of those who 
are not in the public service at all. 

The demands for polidcal contributions made by one office 
holder upon another, being a crimir.al act, has to be made 
secretly. It is natuiai, theiefore, that Mr. John J. Boobar, 
the librarian, should testify that he received an cmonymous 
communication which said in substance: "Please call at 
some certain room in the Raleigh House on some certain 
day," and that the communication was signed " Committee." 
Mr. Boobar did not call, fjr he was informed by employees 



about the House that it was aconunittee "expectiiig to receive 
as donations frora tite different buys part of the exlra month's 
salary that was voted at the last sessio;) of Congress.' (p. 
82.) He says- 

" I CiDsulted with some of the mernbers from my State and I told 
them that if the object of the committee was to raise some sort of a 
campaign fund, that in my estimat;on I could make a dollar of my con- 
tribution go farther in Minnesota than tli.-Ht committee could make $10 
go out there." 

There seems no good reason to doiibt that Mr. Boobar 
was correct in his estimation oi the efficiency of these respec- 
tive contributions. Yet such assessments were paid often 
enough and sometimes v/ithout any knowledge on the part of 
the contributors as to what they were for. A curious illustra- 
tion of the trustfulness of these campaign contributors is 
shown by the testimony of George W. Sabine, assistant libra- 
rian. Mr. Browning, tlie chief chrk, once asked hmi whether 
he. " -^ould not ])ut up $5 a month," and he answered, " Yes." 
He ...ver knevv the r-urpose of this contribution, but thought 
it was a canvnaign fund. He did the same thing in the follow- 
ing session. ^ 

Mr. Enjart, the House " telegrapher," was one of the 
contributors. He testifies that in the 54th Congress he gave 
up $5 a month of his salary for eleven months to Mr. Robin- 
son, the disbursmg d^-^rk. 

Q, What for ?^- 

A. I do not \'--' , ./. 

Q. How did you happen to give it ? 

A. Well, I do not remember exactly who it \va=i came to me, but 
I am most positive it was. Mr. Robinson himself, and said, we need a 
little money for a little while. We will have to assess some of the boys 
$5 and $10. You are a sixteen hundred dollar man and w? will have to 
assess you $5 a month, (p. 43.) 

[n regard to the division ot salaries emong employees the 
House committee reports : 

" On the organization of the House in the Fifty-fourth Congress it 
appears that more places or places with higher salaries were promised 
than the officers of the House were able to discover under the law. It 
does not appear by whom these promises were made. There began at 
once a system whereby the employees agreed to contribute greater or less 
portions of the salaries they received for the purpose either of paying 
persons not on the roll or of increasing the compensation of persoi^s who 
were on the roll. Of the latter class, the increases were not iDropor- 
tioned to the character of the services rendered or the merit of the em- 



13 

ployees. but to the supposed rights of the States or Congressional dis- 
tricts from which the recipients came," (p. VI.) 

Tlie political '• assessor" believes apparently that the words 
"voluntary contribution " have a peculiar charm to stay the 
course of adverse criticism; that with their aid he can effectu- 
ally cover the most evident cases of blackmail and extortion. 

Mr. Henry Robinson, the " bank president" and disbursing 
derk testifies on this subject: 

Q. It is said you personally collected $5 a month from various 
officials. 

A. No sir, I never did. 

Q. Now, we have had, Mr. Robinson, here to-day, people who 
said you did. 

A. 1 think they are certainly mistaken. If it was $5 a month for 
a voluntary contribution, or something of that kind 

Q. Call it it voluntary. 

A. That may be. I think there was a voluntary contribution 
made back in the 54th Congress to take care of some people, (p. 56.) 

And he describes the circumstances. Fifty or sixty d'j'.jrs 
a month was paid to "take care" of a page, etc.,^etc, 

Alexander B. Thomas, (p. 45) Arthur Lues, John W, 
tiuscas, a:id J. A. Savoy, barbers in the Republican cloak- 
room, were each assessed (pp. 40 and 41) $10 a month for 
some eighteen months, which was paid to one Coates, a baiber 
in the Dv^mocratic cloak-room. When Savoy was asked how 
he happened to pay it, he said "At.the "lose of Congress it 
seems as though this man Coates had no ; ' 'e, and they came 
and told us that we would have to cerry hmi. 

Mr. Lyon the man who demanded these contributions, 
thus explains them (p. 50) — " As soon as he (Coates) was 
removed, a gentleman on that .«;ide (Democratic) came and 
kicked about him ". And again, " A gentleman on the Demo- 
cratic side suggested taking care of him in that way' . (p. 51.) 

It would seem to the unsophisticated that if the ejected 
Coates had to be "carried " or paid by assessments upon other 
people, the assessment ought properly to be levitd either upon 
those who were guilty of turning him out or upon those who 
were interested in keeping him in. Or, if this were a political 
assessment for Democratic purposes it would seem that it 
ought properly to be levied upon Democrats. But by the 
higher system of ethics prevailing in this branch of the service 
it is the Republican barbers (who themselves receive only $50 
a month) who have to do the "carrying". 



14 

But the most flagrant case of extortion was that in which 
the victims were Robert Richardson and WiUiam Richardson, 
two colored men employed in the House bathrooms as labor- 
ers at $720 per annum. They had been so employed for 
about twenty years, but in August, 1898, one W, W. Wood, a 
white man, was placed upon the roll and continued there for 
four months, taking the place of Robert, in August and Octo- 
ber, and of William in September and November. 

" We have not learned", (says the Moody Committee) " that Wood 
did anything besides drawing his pay. He never even appeared in the 
bathrooms. The Richardsons performed all the work, but each lost two 
month's pay. The transaction was without their consent. In April, 
1900, W. H. Ridley, a colored man residing in Media, Pa., came to the 
bathrooms with another colored man apparently with the purpose of 
taking the place of one or other of the Richardsons. The final result 
was that the Richardsons agreed each to pay $10 per month to Ridley, 
and did so by registered letters for eight months. Robert Pvichardson 
testified that this was done with the Clerk's orders ; but this the Clerk 
denied, asserting his ignorance of the transaction. The Richardsons 
continued to do the work. Ridley did nothing." (pp. V-VI.) 

Robert Richardson testified that on April 11, 1900, a man 
came to take his place. 

" He said he was sent down to take the place and I showed him the 
place, and after I showed it to him I told him he would go to see his 
friends and I would go to see my friends. I went to see members whom 
I had served there and asked them to assist me to stay, which they did, 
and which I am thankful for. (p. 25.) 

Q, Who did he say sent him there to take your place ? 

A. He said the Clerk of the House had given the place to Mr. 
Butler, of Pennsylvania. 

Q. Did he come again ? 

A. He came again. He found he could not do the work and he 

went home, and you'll see in those papers a telegram The 

telegram referred to is from Congressman Butler, as follows : 

" Mar. 30, 1900. 
" W. L. Matheus: — McDowell is here nnd will appoint a man 
Ridley may bring here, providing he can do the work satisfactorily. 

Thomas S. Butler." (p. 27.) 

After he brought the man neither one could do the work, and he 
wanted to get me to substitute for him and I would not agree, but they 
forced me so strongly William and myself virtually agreed between our- 
selves we would give $ib a month and pay that together — William works 
with me — but he would not agree to that unless we gave him $30 and 
that we would not agree to, so he went back and saw Mr. Butler and the 
Clerk of the House, I suppose, and the Clerk came down on the nth of 
April and told us to give him $10 apiece a month. 



15 

Mr. Overstreet : Who came down and told you ? 

The Witness. Mr. McDowell. 

By the Chairman : 

Q. That is a pretty serious matter. Are you sure ? 

A. I am as sure as I am that I am sitting in this chair. 

Q. Mr. McDowell came himself 

A. And told William and myself to give that man $io apiece. 

Q. When was that? 

A. The nth of April and I made the date of it 

Q. Was Ridley a colored man ? 

A. Yes sir. 

Q. How long did he do any work in the bathroom? 

A. He did not do a lick there. 

Q. Did he work there a day ? 

A. Not half an hour. 

Q. What led you to pay this money when you knew it belonged 
to you ? 

A. I had orders to do it, and I was afraid not to do it because I 
was afraid of losing the place. 

Q. How much did you pay altogether ? 

A. We paid him $ 1 60. I paid §So and William $80. (pp. 25-26.) 

Attached to Mr. Richardson's testimony are thirteen 
letters from Riciley. The first three letters, written in April 
and May, iqoo, demand $30 a month and contain threats of 
"harsher methods". Two letters written in June promise 
Richardson that if he will secure Ridley a $1,400 job the 
money paid will l)e rriunded. Tlie last letters are dunning 
letters demanding the payment of $20, which was finally 
stopped. The final letter, Jan. 30, 1901, says, " I will be 
compelled to appeal to higher authorities if you persist in re- 
fusing to send the sum '. Thus these poor negroes, Robert 
and William Richardson, were deprived of $160, besides the 
four months' wages previously paid to Wood, and neither 
Wood nor Ridley ever appeared in the bathroom at all. 

Another remarkable case of division of salaries is that of 
Mr. Alward's in respect to which the Moody Committee re- 
ports as follows : 

"Dennis E. Alward entered the employ of the House in April, 
i8q6, as superintendent of the document room, at a salary of $2,000 
per annum, and remained in that position until the beginning of the 
special session of the Fifty-fifth Congress. During this period, by ar- 
rangement between the respective members of the House, from whose 
districts the employees came, he paid at the rate of $400 per annum to 
the use of Oscar J. Hill, a folder, serving as messenger at the main 
door. At the special session of the Fifty-fifth Congress Mr. Alward 
became one of the reading clerks of the House at a salary of $3,600, and 



i6 

had continued in that position until the present time. During the two 
years of the Fifty-fifth Congress, he paid Mr. Robinson (disbursing 
clerk) by some understanding the origin of which is uncertain, the sum 
of $T,6oo per annum for the general purposes above described, (i. e., 
•of paying persons not on the roll or increasing the compensation of per- 
sons who were on the roll.)" (p. VII.) 

Mr. Ahvard thus testifies to the circumstances under which 
he gave the money : 

Q. To whom did you pay the money physically? 

A. I gave the money to Mr. Gillet, asking him to hand it over, 
. . . Mr. Gillet said ' Now, I do not make any demand on you, or any- 
thing of that kind ; I simply say to you that here is this young man to 
whom certain promises have been made, and you have come in here and 
are getting this money.' As I said, it ran along some time — two or 
three weeks, I guess — when finally I said to Mr. Gillet, ' Now I will 
give this young man so much.' . . It amounted to $400 a year, but 
I said, " I do not want to have anything to do with the young man, at 
all." (p. 61.) 

Mr. Alward, therefore, had the money intended for the 
man in question handed directly to Congressman Gillet (of 
New York.) 

Mr. Robinson, the " bank president," testifies that Alward 
endorsed his salary check to him. R.obinson saw thai Alward 
got $2,000 of his own salary, that one A. C. Smith got $1,200, 
and that the $400 remaining went with other " voluntary 
contributions " to one McMichaei. He adds : 

" I wish to state here that I did n t know that there was any im- 
propriety in the matter, and that what was done was done with no other 
object or with any other idea than that it was right and proper." (p. 
77-) 

Robinson afterwards became very much confused in his 
statements regarding these payments and finally it was ascer- 
tained that part of Smith's salary went in turn to one Abram 
Setley, who was carried on the roll at $720 as a messenger, 
but who was to receive $1,200. (p. ri6.) 
^,^; Mr. Glenn, the door-keeper, testifies that at one time some 
of Alward's money was paid to one Oscar J. Hill. Hill ap- 
pears to have been prudent and thrifty in the matter of his 
own compensation, for Glenn testifies : 

Q. Did he also get anything in the Deficiency Bill? 
A. Yes, sir. He got his bill through. He -was at the top of the 
list and it went through." 

A. C. Smith, who himself at one time paid $400 a year 
out of his salary of $1,600, does not kno«' who got the 



'7 

money. It was " Either Mr. Alward or some one else." He 
does not remember when these payments ceased, nor during 
how much of the time he got $i,6oo, or how much $1,200. 
(p. no.) 

Under the remarkable system in force m this branch of 
the service, not only is there no record of the net compensa- 
tion which an employee actually receives, but the employee 
is often deprived of his memory as to how much he gets and 
how much he pays to others. 

Upon the subject of division of salaries, the Clerk of the 
House testified as follows : 

" Salaries have been divided for years, and it is generally caused by 
the Members ; you understand that. For instance, two men draw two 
positions. One is $1,200 and the other $3oo. They both want the 
Si,2oo position ; and they compromise by one taking the §800 position 
and the one of $1,200, and they figure 8 and 12 is 20, one half of 20 is 
10. This is a matter which they figure among themselves." (Report, 
p.Vil.) 

Besides the divisions of salaries there were other remark- 
able features in this branch of the serAice, among them a 
peculiar system of service and conii^ensation without any ap- 
pointment whatever. Thus John Holiingsworth, of Missouri, 
a little tellow they called "Johnny ", was not emjjlojed and 
never even had permission to go on the floor, but he went on 
the floor, acted as page, and was paid by a deficiency appro- 
priation. As Mr. Bailey said, "he piacticallv appointed him- 
self." (P. 75-) 

In other cases the evidence showed enormous salaries paid 
for very trifling service. For instance, a newspaper clerk, 
who had charge of the subscription lists and took care of the 
files, "which were consulted by pro!)ably twenty-five or thirty 
people a day ", was paid $2,000 a year, and, havmg little to 
do, was used as a proofreader m the enrolling room (p 6), 
while another man (Aaron Russell), a messenger at a salary 
of $1,314, brought up the newspapers and put them upon the 
files (p. 7). 

A place wiiich involves an indefinite amount of leakage is 
that of Carpenter for the House. He receives no salary, but 
simply ''goes around and does the work" (as McDowell tes- 
tifies), makes out a bill for it, swears to it, then it is approved 
by the Clerk, then it goes to the Committee on Accounts. 
The Carpenter himself designates the work that shall be done 



13 



by him. He furnishes his own material. The Clerk is unable 
to state how much is paid for this work, and adds (p. 109) : 
"I have no doubt it is plenty". It seems there is one item 
of $3,218.40 for packing boxes alone. And Mr. Bailey, a 
member of the committee, states that •' worse boxes could not 
be got." 

This committee, which investigated these abuses, states 
that the short time at their disposal rendered it impossible to 
make a complete investigation. It is perhaps ungracious to 
criticise a report which in the main appears to be so candid 
and impartial, yet it will be noticed that, while giving the 
names of many employees who have violated the law, the 
committee do not give the names of the particular Members of 
the House who caused its violation. In a few cases the 
names of the Congressmen responsible for these abuses ap- 
pear in the testimony, but it would seem to be more frequently 
accidental than otherwise, and few inquiries are made upon 
this subject. ^^Xt^ 

The entire force in which these abuses occurred consisted ♦ 
of 357 persons, and their aggregate annual compensation was 
about $400,000. The question presents itself to your com- 
mittee : If such abuses can exist in a force of this size, what 
would be the effect of the restoration of the patronage system 
in the 85,000 places which are now subject to competitive ex- 
amination and merit tenure ? 

Respectfully submitted, 

William Dudley Foulke,. 
Richard Henry Dana, 
William A. Aiken, 
Charles Richardson, 
George McAnfny. 



) 



.rjrj^Dv Qc CONGRESS 



C l'-^. i^^ -^- *"' 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH 83 



